Following our previous coverage on affidavit or declaration requirements imposed by many jurisdictions for motions for summary judgment, we will delve deeper into the rule’s application beyond affidavits, as discussed by Carlton Fields on JD Supra.
One of the core requirements is that the affidavits or declarations need to be grounded in personal knowledge. This requirement stems from the necessity for the evidence to be credible and reliable. If submitted evidence is not rooted in the personal experience of the affiant, it leaves room for doubt and possible dismissal by the court.
Furthermore, it is crucial that the affiant is deemed competent to testify. This does not imply a need for expert status but rather underlines the need for an affiant to be able to provide rational and true statements based on their firsthand knowledge.
In addition to the two points previously stated, the affidavit or declaration should contain facts that would otherwise be admissible in evidence. If they hold information that would be considered hearsay or speculative under cross-examination, such evidence could be swiftly dismissed.
While these requirements are widely known to be applied to affidavits and declarations, it is important to consider that they extend to other forms of evidence. For instance, deposition transcripts or interrogatory answers also need to adhere to these strictures. Any form of evidence proposed for a motion of summary judgment must meet these criteria in order to support a defensible position. Failing to do so might result in annulment of the evidence or, in worse case scenarios, losing the motion altogether.
Legal professionals should take cognizance of these rules when collecting and presenting evidence in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment. Remember, the evidentiary standards for these motions are stringent and failure to meet them can have serious implications for the proceedings.